Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1972 (ALL)

Roop Ram v. State Of Uttar Pradesh

2024-08-30

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shyam Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was allotted lease of the surplus land declared under Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1976 hereinafter referred as Ceiling Act. The proceeding for cancellation under Section 27 (4) of the Ceiling Act has been initiated by the State in the year 1994 and by ex-parte order dated 13.10.1995, the lease of the petitioner has been cancelled. Petitioner filed restoration application against the order dated 13.10.1995. The aforementioned restoration application was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 4.4.2003 hence this writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 4.4.2003 passed by respondent no.2 and the order dated 13.10.1995 passed by respondent no.3. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute." 3. This Court entertained the matter on 22.5.2003 and passed the following interim order:- "Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents prays for and is allowed one month's time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List in first week of August, 2003. In the meantime, the petitioner if not already dispossessed in pursuance of the order dated 13.10.1995 as confirmed by order dated 4.4.2003, shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute." 4. No counter affidavit has been filed by State in spite of the time granted by this Court on 22.5.2003. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was granted lease in the year 1976 in respect to the land which was declared surplus in the ceiling proceeding. He further submitted that proceeding for cancellation has been initiated in the year 1994 which is barred by the provisions contained under Section 27 (6) of the Ceiling Act. He submitted that the ground of cancellation is also misconceived, as such, the impugned order passed by Commissioner cancelling the petitioner's lease is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that restoration application filed by petitioner has also been dismissed in arbitrary manner. He submitted that the ground of cancellation is also misconceived, as such, the impugned order passed by Commissioner cancelling the petitioner's lease is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that restoration application filed by petitioner has also been dismissed in arbitrary manner. He placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court reported in 2006 (2) ADJ 155 (All) Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another in order to demonstrate that cancellation proceeding under Section 27 (4) of the Ceiling Act cannot be initiated after the prescribed period of limitation as provided under Section 27 (6) of the Ceiling Act. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Shyam Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. He further submitted that the ground for cancellation is mentioned in the order, as such, no interference is required in the matter. He further submitted that order for cancellation was passed in the year 1995 and the highly time barred restoration application has been filed by the petitioner which has rightly been dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 4.4.2003. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner was granted lease in the year 1976 in respect to the land which has been declared surplus under the Ceiling Act. There is also no dispute about the fact that proceeding for cancellation has been initiated after the prescribed period of limitation as provided under Section 27 (6) of the Ceiling Act and under the impugned order, petitioner's lease has been cancelled. 9. There is also no dispute about the fact that proceeding for cancellation has been initiated after the prescribed period of limitation as provided under Section 27 (6) of the Ceiling Act and under the impugned order, petitioner's lease has been cancelled. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of Section 27 (6) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1976:- "Section 27 (6) of the Ceiling Act-(6) The Commissioner acting of his own motion under sub-section (4) may issue notice, and an application under that sub-section may be made, — 6[(a) in the case of any settlement made or lease granted before November 10, 1980, before the expiry of a period of 7[seven years] from the said date, and ; 6(b) in the case of any settlement made or lease granted on or after the said date, before the expiry of a period of 8[five years from the date of such settlement or lease or up to November 10, 1987, whichever be later ]" 10. The perusal of the provisions as quoted above as well as the fact that proceeding for cancellation has been initiated after about 18 years, as such, the order for cancellation of petitioner's lease passed by the Commissioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 11. This Court has held that in the case of Dinesh Kumar (Supra) that time barred proceeding for cancellation under Section 27 (4) of the Ceiling Act cannot be entertained. The relevant paragraph Nos. 4,5 and 6 of the judgement are as follows:- "4-Admittedly, the initial allotment of the plot was made by the Land Management Committee on 6.3.1976 and was approved by the Sub Divisional Officer on 19.11.1977, after which the name of the allottees had been entered in the revenue records. As such, the lease was granted in favour of the petitioner before November 10,1980. The specific condition of the petitioner is that under the aforesaid sub-Section (6) of Section 27, no notice for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the petitioner could thus be issued after November 10, 1987. In the present case, the notice has been issued on 18.5.1993. As such the proceedings for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the petitioner could not have at all been initiated after 10.11.1987. In the present case, the notice has been issued on 18.5.1993. As such the proceedings for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the petitioner could not have at all been initiated after 10.11.1987. The specific averments to this effect have been made in paragraphs 22 and 23 (a) of the writ petition, to which there is no denial in the counter affidavit. 5. Even otherwise, in the impugned order it has been stated that the land which was allotted to the petitioner for agriculture use was being used for building houses and hence the lease was being cancelled. In the same order itself it has been mentioned that there is no construction on the said land and thus the very ground on which the notice had been issued to the petitioner on 18.5.1993 that buildings were being constructed on the said land does not have any basis. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 22.1.2002, besides being without jurisdiction, is also not tenable in law on merits and is thus liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed and the order dated 22.1.2002 passed by respondent no.2, the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Meerut Division, Meerut is quashed. There shall be no order as to costs." 12. The ground taken for cancellation in the impugned order is that petitioner Roopram has transferred the allotted plot in favour of one Manipal without executing sale deed but petitioner has taken specific stand in paragraph No. 12 of the writ petition that petitioner has never sold the property in dispute and petitioner is continuing in possession of the plot in dispute. No counter affidavit has been filed by State for the last 21 years, as such, there is no option except to decide the writ petition on merit. The ground taken for cancellation in the impugned order cannot be sustained on merit. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Dinesh Kumar (Supra), the impugned orders dated 4.4.2023 and 13.10.1995 passed by respondent no.2 are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. Writ petition stands allowed and the lease executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1976 is hereby affirmed. 14. No order as to costs.